Editor;

Since I am not on any social media, I find I cannot comment on your website. Therefore, I provide my comments in this email so they may be published.

Re: Trevor Falk's article published September 3rd, which begins "This is the first in a series of articles about the lack of information about the public business of the township of Chatsworth."

At the risk of exposing myself to criticism, there are a few points in this article that should be clarified. Mr. Falk quotes the Freedom of Information & Protection of Privacy Act, which is not the "Municipal Freedom of Information & Protection of Privacy Act" which pertains exclusively to municipalities. There are subtle differences. MFIPPA provides that,

"1. The purposes of this Act are,
(a) to provide a right of access to information under the control of
institutions in accordance with the principles that,
(i) information should be available to the public,
(ii) necessary exemptions from the right of access should be limited and
specific, and
(iii) decisions on the disclosure of information should be reviewed
independently of the institution controlling the information; and
(b) to protect the privacy of individuals with respect to personal
information about themselves held by institutions and to provide individuals
with a right of access to that information. R.S.O. 1990, c. M.56, s. 1."

A right to access, does not mean that the municipality has to publish such records on its website. There is a process to gain access, in part, as follows:

"Access Procedure
Request
17. (1) A person seeking access to a record shall,
(a) make a request in writing to the institution that the person believes has custody or control of the record;
(b) provide sufficient detail to enable an experienced employee of the institution, upon a reasonable effort, to identify the record; and
(c) at the time of making the request, pay the fee prescribed by the regulations for that purpose. 1996, c. 1, Sched. K, s. 14.

Frivolous request
(1.1) If the head of the institution is of the opinion on reasonable grounds that the request is frivolous or vexatious, subsections (2) to (5) do not apply to the request. 1996, c. 1, Sched. K, s. 14; 2006, c. 34,
Sched. C, s. 14 (1)."

The process is long and does not provide quicker access than Chatsworth is trying to provide. Invoking the MFIPPA will only delay your thirst for information. A less adversarial approach may be more successful in the long run. Municipalities are not legally required to have websites. They are not legally required to post every document in their possession on the websites they do have. Municipalities, which do have very comprehensive information posted on their websites generally have more means to do so, ie,
funds for IT staff, funds for additional office staff to keep up the site.

In 2012, Georgian Bluffs had taxable assessment of $1,176,814,793 - almost the same level as the City of Owen Sound. Chatsworth had $716,785,120 which is just 61 per cent of Georgian Bluffs' and its tax rate in 2012 was only 8 per cent higher. Georgian Bluffs' total revenues, including taxation, in 2012 were $ 9,896,332 while Chatsworth's were $ 6,151,168. Chatsworth only has 62% of the revenue capacity of Georgian Bluffs with a higher tax rate. Chatsworth's options are very limited compared to its neighbours. Has Mr. Falk considered offering to volunteer to assist Chatsworth in improving its website, in an effort to achieve your ends and gain some insight into all the issues involved?

Joan Albright
Chatsworth